Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 370 (CAL)

Nivedita Ghosh v. State of West Bengal

2002-06-12

Barin Ghosh

body2002
JUDGMENT : - Barin Ghosh, J.: The post of Headmistress of a girl school fell vacant. The Managing Committee of the said school approached the West Bengal School Service Commission for the purpose of selecting a suitable candidate to fill up the said post. The said School Service Commission invited applications from the public at large to fill up the said post. Except the petitioner, no one else applied for the said post. The petitioner was asked to appear at the interview, as appears from the affidavit-in-opposition, the selectors found that the petitioner has no knowledge of administration and functions to be discharged by a Headmistress. They also found that the petitioner is ignorant as to how a Managing Committee is formed and the duties and responsibilities discharged by a Managing Committee. They also expressed an opinion that the petitioner lacked leadership qualities and basic communication skill. In that view of the matter, the selectors reported that the petitioner was not fit for being empanelled and, accordingly, no panel was prepared for filling up the said post. The question is whether the School Service Commission, which is a creature of a statute, and its officers could act in the manner they have acted in the instant case and whether such act comes within the four corners of the statute. Section 7 of the Act imposes a duty upon the Commission to select persons for appointment to the post of teachers. Section 8 of the Act, however, says that the manner and scope of selection of persons for appointment to the posts of teachers shall be as has been prescribed. Sub-section (k) of section 2 defines the expression 'prescribed' by saying that the same means prescribed by rules made under the Act. In terms of the rule-making power, the West Bengal School Service Commission Rules have been made. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the said Rules provides that the State Government in the School Education Department shall lay down the procedure for recruitment of teacher, Headmaster and Headmistress including, inter alia, the essential and/or desirable qualification and other qualifications, age, experience and other requirements. In terms thereof the State Government in the School Education Department laid down the procedure for recruitment of teachers, Headmaster and Headmistress. The State Government accepted the same and once again in exercise of its rule-making power established such procedure as a rule. In terms thereof the State Government in the School Education Department laid down the procedure for recruitment of teachers, Headmaster and Headmistress. The State Government accepted the same and once again in exercise of its rule-making power established such procedure as a rule. An amendment has been effected to the said procedure. In terms of such amendment in the matter of selection of Headmaster/Headmistress, there is now no requirement of written test. The candidates aspiring to be Headmaster/Headmistress now are required to be awarded a total of fifty marks of which thirty marks be accounted for academic qualification, three marks for higher qualifications, seven marks for teaching experience and ten marks for personality test. The procedure does not say that unless a person has secured a particular mark out of the total of fifty marks or a particular mark Out of the total often marks allotted for personality test, such a candidate shall be deemed to be ineligible for being appointed. In the premises, assuming the petitioner was found by the selectors to have no knowledge of administration and financial functions, and ignorance about how a Managing Committee functions and on top of that the petitioner lacks leadership quality, the selectors could award zero to the petitioner out often marks allotted for personality test but despite that the petitioner would have secured some marks on account of her educational qualification and experience. If the petitioner had secured such marks, in accordance with the mandate contained in the substituted clause (4) of the procedure, it was obligatory on the part of the said School Service Commission to prepare a panel on the basis of the total marks obtained on account of academic qualifications, higher qualifications, experience and personality test and in the event, any such panel had been prepared, the petitioner, when she was the alone candidate, must have featured in such panel. According to its own regulation prepared by the School Service Commission in terms of the power granted to it by the Act, it would have been obligatory on the part of the said Commission to recommend the petitioner for the post, in question. That being the position, assuming the petitioner has secured zero mark out of ten marks in the personality test, it was beyond the competence of the said Commission to refuse to recommend the petitioner for the post, in question. That being the position, assuming the petitioner has secured zero mark out of ten marks in the personality test, it was beyond the competence of the said Commission to refuse to recommend the petitioner for the post, in question. In that view of the matter, this writ petition succeeds. The said School Service Commission is directed to prepare the panel strictly in accordance with the mandate contained in the substituted clause (4) of the procedure and thereupon takes steps to recommend in terms of the regulations prepared by it. Such steps must be taken within ten days from the date of service of copy of this order. 2. Let an urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be delivered to the learned Counsel, for the petitioner. Writ petition allowed.